RICHARD SILVA, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant's guilty pleas were voluntary and that he had no federally protected right to a jury trial.
Appellant sought habeas corpus relief, claiming his guilty pleas were involuntary due to counsel's coercion and that he was denied a jury trial and co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confrontation Of Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from denial of a writ of habeas corpus1 to appellant who is now serving concurrent sentences for theft and for possession of narcotics in the Texas State Penitentiary.
Appellant contends that his pleas of guilty to the above offenses were not freely and voluntarily entered because he was compelled to plead guilty by his retained counsel, now deceased. Appellant also complains that he was denied trial by jury and confrontation of witnesses, and that the indictments were invalid in several respects.
The District Court held an evidentiary hearing with appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, present and testifying. The Court rendered detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are. abundantly supported by credible evidence and applicable legal authorities.2
We conclude that the appellant’s pleas of guilty were freely and voluntarily entered upon advice of counsel after he was fully advised of his constitutional rights by the trial court. See Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir. 1966, 356 F. 2d 75; Cooper v. Holman, 5 Cir. 1966, 356 F. 2d 82. Therefore, appellant had no federally protected right to a jury trial. Moreover, the prosecuting attorney testified, and the court below found, that the appellant expressly waived his right to a jury. Certified copies of the indict- merits which were entered in evidence appear to be regular and valid in all essential particulars.
The judgment of the District Court is correct, and it is hereby
Affirmed.
. 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
. See Silva v. Beto, Civil Action No. 66-H-424 (S.D.Tex., Houston Division).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Busby v. Holman, 356 F.2d 75 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Cooper v. Holman, 356 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1966)